ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Clip-first emergency hemostasis for acute esophagogastric variceal bleeding: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundActive esophagogastric variceal bleeding can obscure the endoscopic field and make definitive therapy difficult during emergency gastroscopy. We evaluated a clip-first strategy designed to obtain immediate mechanical control before local cyanoacrylate reinforcement or staged secondary prophylaxis.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 115 acute bleeding episodes among 102 adults treated at a single tertiary center. Episodes were assigned to a clip-first group (n = 42) or a conventional emergency endoscopic therapy group without clip-first control (n = 73). Variceal anatomy was reclassified as esophageal varices (EV) only or by the Sarin system for gastric varices. Primary outcomes were technical success and endoscopic hemostasis time; secondary outcomes included injection material use, rebleeding, adverse events, length of stay, and mortality.
resultsTechnical success was achieved in all episodes. Hemostasis time was shorter in the unadjusted analysis (10.60 ± 5.14 vs. 12.84 ± 6.66 min; P = 0.049), but the adjusted difference was not statistically significant (- 1.96 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.17 to 0.25; P = 0.081). Adjusted reductions in cyanoacrylate (- 0.79 mL, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.44; P < 0.001) and lauromacrogol (- 4.10 mL, 95% CI -6.82 to -1.37; P = 0.004) remained significant. No perforation, ectopic embolism, local tissue necrosis, or death was recorded among patients with documented status.
conclusionsClip-first emergency hemostasis was feasible, with no significant difference in adjusted hemostasis time and with reduced cyanoacrylate and lauromacrogol use. Larger prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the clinical significance of this strategy, including its effects on hemostatic efficiency, and rebleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823548What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.